Changing the campaign

User avatar
Hob_Gadling
Captain
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 00:15
Contact:

Changing the campaign

Postby Hob_Gadling » Fri 31 May 2013 17:29

Once more with feeling. Please read this first:

viewtopic.php?f=93&t=30365

(also read FLX's reply a few messages down)

If you increase time limits, you favor attacker a lot.
If you increase starting points, you favor attacker a lot.
If you increase income from zones, you favor defender a lot.
If you don't give out morale when a draw occurs defending becomes impossible for many units.
If you drop morale when a draw occurs defenders will collapse completely after first retreat.
If you don't drop initiative when a draw occurs attackers can do a lot more blowouts.

The drawing mechanism is not broken and as such can not be fixed. From game mechanics perspective it is just about the most solid piece of design Eugen has ever done. The campaigns themselves are about as well balanced as I've ever seen in a strategy game.

I understand the desire to have larger battles. I really do. I just think it requires a ton of balance testing and essentially rewriting all the campaign scenarios. My guess? Eugen is saving it for the inevitable return to Central Europe where we will see larger fights, larger battlegroups and a larger map.

What seems to be broken is AI, with its tendency to hide CVs. It doesn't so much attempt hide them. It seems to be an unintentional result when running away from attacking troops. Recon plus a pair of fast units seem to have good success rate in killing the CV when you flush it out. If something should be changed, this AI quirk would be the prime thing.

As for computer cheating: that is what computers do. The purpose is not to make one that plays like a human. The purpose is to give a tough fight. I'd suggest giving computer flat bonuses based on skill level and writing them out in the skill level description. It only feels like cheating because computer bonuses are hidden. If you know at campaign start the computer will get a flat +10 income bonus in every fight it turns from cheating into a challenge.

Just to prove I don't think the campaigns are literally perfect I'll name one flaw that needs to get fixed. Minelayers are OP and need to cost 10 political points.

Goldensniper
First Sergeant
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue 8 Jan 2013 09:55
Contact:

Re: Changing the campaign

Postby Goldensniper » Fri 31 May 2013 17:33

Hob_Gadling wrote:Once more with feeling. Please read this first:

viewtopic.php?f=93&t=30365

(also read FLX's reply a few messages down)


If you increase income from zones, you favor defender a lot.
.


What ? Usually when you defend, you have more Starting zone with "3" point already... because it's your territory so you have more connected territory.


If I follow what you say then ...
If you increase time limits, you favor attacker a lot.

If you increase income from zones, you favor defender a lot.

Then we can do both and it equilibrate :) and we have more dynamic battles than endless draws

User avatar
Hob_Gadling
Captain
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 00:15
Contact:

Re: Changing the campaign

Postby Hob_Gadling » Fri 31 May 2013 17:38

Goldensniper wrote:Then we can do both and it equilibrate


Yes, although I think the way to go would be to increase the starting points from initiative and points from holding reinforcement zones. This gives attacker a temporary advantage he must quickly turn into a permanent one or be bogged down. It doesn't lessen the amount of draws if done properly, just changes the starting setup into something that allows bigger battles. Sorry. :)

Falcrack
Lieutenant
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2012 21:10
Contact:

Re: Changing the campaign

Postby Falcrack » Fri 31 May 2013 17:39

When the majority of folks say a campaign mechanic is broken, and one or two people chime in to say that all is well and nothing should be changed, then perhaps, maybe, the game would be better served by fixing the things that most consider broken.

The point is, most people think that the attacker is currently too gimped, and that it is too hard to avoid draws. And what would be wrong exactly with instead of an automatic -1 initiative +1 morale after a draw, making it so that the change in initiative or morale is tied somehow with how well each side did during a battle? The way it is makes it so that you either need to have a blowout victory, or almost all draw situations are created equal. Yes I know, capturing command zones and such, destroying key units, but my point is both of these things are not enough of a difference, and when you have to spend tons of points just to place CVs in captured zones at the start of the next match, it is very very frustrating.

It's not about simply changing the amount of starting points or whatever, it's about making what happens to initiative and morale following a draw more reflective of what took place during the previous battle in terms of points gained/lost, if that makes sense.

User avatar
Mr0Buggy
Brigadier
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon 27 May 2013 15:57
Contact:

Re: Changing the campaign

Postby Mr0Buggy » Fri 31 May 2013 18:02

You might wanna re read my thread Hob, lotsa different opinions and suggestions have shown up since your last visit. Most of them reasonable

Also what Falcrack said. If you and couple different Marshalls and users tell everyone that all is good and to move along while mast majority is offering a constructive criticism [quality varies though], it means something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and you guys could do something else instead of pretending that "it's not a bug, it's a feature" and it's "working as intended". Don't sweep people under a rug and force them to play as you guys have envisioned it. Work with them and Eugen guys to listen to them and properly address concerns one way or another.

User avatar
Hob_Gadling
Captain
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 00:15
Contact:

Re: Changing the campaign

Postby Hob_Gadling » Fri 31 May 2013 18:07

Falcrack wrote:The point is, most people think that the attacker is currently too gimped, and that it is too hard to avoid draws.


Yes. And I think they're wrong. People are still playing the old game and that doesn't work anymore. You need to be a lot more aggressive, but destruction has taught people to avoid casualties like the plague. Disregard the casualties and take ground! That is literally how you win!

And what would be wrong exactly with instead of an automatic -1 initiative +1 morale after a draw, making it so that the change in initiative or morale is tied somehow with how well each side did during a battle?


You have BGs like the Danish one. It is very, very hard to gain a positive K/D ratio (and I'm assuming you're talking about K/D) with it, especially against Pact mechanized units. If the result is tied to losses then this battlegroup is worthless.

Then you have BGs like 3rd Commando. If the result is tied to K/D and Pact has almost any artillery in their deck, this unit becomes useless rapidly.

The -1 init +1 morale is there to enable meatgrinders. Changing that changes the whole dynamic. Surely you can see how redesigning the whole game at this point is incredibly unlikely?

almost all draw situations are created equal.


Simply not true. Once you reach Alamo the defenders have a nearly impossible task since killing the last CV kills all combat units and wins the map on the spot.

You also need only to place CVs at 3 point sectors. They pay themselves back in three minutes. That still leaves you 17 minutes to do things with the points you get afterwards. Read the linked post from OP for details.

It's not about simply changing the amount of starting points or whatever, it's about making what happens to initiative and morale following a draw more reflective of what took place during the previous battle in terms of points gained/lost, if that makes sense.


That makes a lot of sense. What I'm saying is, the game also makes a lot of sense once you understand how it flows.
Last edited by Hob_Gadling on Fri 31 May 2013 18:31, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Re: Changing the campaign

Postby DeuZerre » Fri 31 May 2013 18:10

The morale shouldn't change for the draws. It favours the defence too much since it makes battles longer and longer.

Making +0 should be OK. Or only +1 for the one that was closer to his objective.
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

schaefsky
Sergeant Major
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue 9 Apr 2013 14:54
Contact:

Re: Changing the campaign

Postby schaefsky » Fri 31 May 2013 18:14

Hob_Gadling wrote:If you increase time limits, you favor attacker a lot.
If you increase starting points, you favor attacker a lot.
If you increase income from zones, you favor defender a lot.
If you don't give out morale when a draw occurs defending becomes impossible for many units.
If you drop morale when a draw occurs defenders will collapse completely after first retreat.
If you don't drop initiative when a draw occurs attackers can do a lot more blowouts.

And IMO these things should have been tested during the beta. Seriously, the SP mode has "rushed release" written all over it.
I have read 2 press reviews so far (ratings 70/100 and 5/5), both had nothing good to say about the SP. I fear Eugen have shot themselves in the foot with this.

Also I absolutely fail to see how e.g. the time limit as the easiest one can not be made an option. It is said to break the campaign to if you change it, for petes sake let me ruin my own SP game then if I want to.
What is the hurt? You can choose the AI you like to play against. (Hope I don't give anyone funny ideas to lock that too...)
If I fiddle with game settings and the game is broken, it is my problem.
If it feels broken and there is nothing I can do about it, it is just hugely frustrating.

User avatar
Hob_Gadling
Captain
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 00:15
Contact:

Re: Changing the campaign

Postby Hob_Gadling » Fri 31 May 2013 18:24

DeuZerre wrote:The morale shouldn't change for the draws. It favours the defence too much since it makes battles longer and longer.


It must. Otherwise defenders don't have any reasonable way of gaining morale. Turning the battles into an endless string of draws is the objective of defender, why shouldn't he be rewarded for it?

User avatar
Mr0Buggy
Brigadier
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon 27 May 2013 15:57
Contact:

Re: Changing the campaign

Postby Mr0Buggy » Fri 31 May 2013 18:33

Hob_Gadling wrote:
DeuZerre wrote:The morale shouldn't change for the draws. It favours the defence too much since it makes battles longer and longer.


It must. Otherwise defenders don't have any reasonable way of gaining morale. Turning the battles into an endless string of draws is the objective of defender, why shouldn't he be rewarded for it?


Only if he done any effort to to do anything to actually deserve ? If you are nuking the enemy but you are lacking points to win the battle of the day, then you should be delayed. That I can agree with. However, the defender should not be rewarded for having half of his battle group obliterated, ergo why should be the Minor/major victory/defeat concept be incorporated into current Morale/Initiative mechanic [not into making it any more than that though]. Not mentioning having less and less resources to work with.

Adding Minor/Major V/D and making the player at the very least keep the points and units [one way or another] he amassed from previous battle, make most complaints to be made moot and improve the flow of the game vastly for most people concerned.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests